Mic-only players: describe your setup

As a recently converted mic-only player, I am very curious to hear about fellow double bass players that use a mic exclusively, too. There are a lot of threads in the Talkbass archives concerning this topic (which I have read before making the decision to sell my Schertler Dyn-B pickup and get a mic), but I would like to know what mic-only players use as their setup nowadays.

I'll start off myself: I use a Neumann KM 185 mic (which is a hypercardioid) on a stand, together with an SPL Gainstation mic preamp, a Lab.gruppen iP 450 power amp, and a Glockenklang Acoustic Art Mk. I cab. My bass is strung with Pirastro Permanents (which are all steel strings).

So, now tell me about yours!

Vincent

BTW: I would prefer if this thread would not turn into a mic-vs-pickup debate; each have their own advantages and disadvantages, and choice between the one or the other is highly personal, as I have experienced myself. Thanx!

I've been playing lately with the KK Golden Trinity mic only, it's pretty afordable and it gets the job done. My current strings are Tomastiks Spirocore weich, I had Obligatos medium gage before, and I just ordered some Velvets Animas.
Being that I had to raise the strings to do the mic only thing, I will try these strings based on comments I read here on Talkbass. I am hoping I will still get the same acoustic volume or greater, I am hoping the strings will be a little softer than tomastiks at that height and also that I might get a more old school sound.

I used to play with the mic only but now I do mix the Dyn-B in but I only mix as much as I need which usually means very little. Especially for smaller groups, I still use just the mic which is the AMT. I have the AMT going into a Behringer UB802 (which I am borrowing at the moment to try it out) and then into the Pub 2/280. I'm playing a mostly gut setup with Chorda G, Oliv D, Eudoxa A, and Superflexible E.

Don, that was a rig I was considering. I am assuming you mean the powered Wizzy speaker. How do you like it with the AMT?

Click to expand...

I really like it. Frankly the trinity gets more use than the AMT just because I find it a little more user friendly. When I do use both I hvae the trinity under the tailpiece aiming up at the strings and the AMT on the side .

Clear and articulate tone. The wizzy is not as focused as the PUB but I can live with that.

I have the AMT going into a Behringer UB802 (which I am borrowing at the moment to try it out) and then into the Pub 2/280.

Click to expand...

Adrian, I do a lot of recording and I have checked out a lot of different mixers and mic preamps. Those Behringer mixers really add a lot of thin high end, not good for bass, IMO. If you need an inexpensive mixer to blend a mic and p/u, I'd go with a Yamaha MG series, or save up for a good blender.

Larry. You may well be right. To be honest, I've never been fond of Behringer gear but I wanted something not too expensive and something that was small enough to fit into the pocket of my Bobelock bag. It seems to work for me so far. One thing - I have the top band of EQ rolled right off for the channel that has the AMT coming into it. Everything else is flat including the channel for the Dyn-B.

I'm hopping on this thread because in my ever evolving gear neuroses I have conjured up this quandry: In theory, would a powered speaker be more compatible for use with a mic (w/preamp, of course) than a bass cab? I ask because in my Woods vs Focus battle I have found the Pub to be better sounding than either of them with the mic - also less feedback prone. So I wonder if it is by design or chance. Any thoughts would be much appreciated, and sorry if this is too off topic.

I think that a well designed powered speaker system, where the amp is specifically matched with the speakers, would be a pretty safe bet. Piecing together even quality components is probably more of a crapshoot for most of us.

I'm hopping on this thread because in my ever evolving gear neuroses I have conjured up this quandry: In theory, would a powered speaker be more compatible for use with a mic (w/preamp, of course) than a bass cab? I ask because in my Woods vs Focus battle I have found the Pub to be better sounding than either of them with the mic - also less feedback prone. So I wonder if it is by design or chance. Any thoughts would be much appreciated, and sorry if this is too off topic.

Click to expand...

In my experience, not a powered speaker per se, although it has its advantages, as ctxbass rightly remarked. I feel that the only way to play comfortably with a mic is through a full range rig, so a kind of a mini PA, like Monte's (and mine). Bass amps and speakers usually are voiced in such a way that the mids are anything but natural, and it is specifically these frequencies that are crucial. (Not only when playing with a mic, btw!)

When I go just with a mic, I use a Beta 58 on a stand, and the house PA. No monitors.

Never tried the K&K; I've tried the AMT one, really like it (the first time I used it I thought it didn't work because all I could hear was me), but am sitting on the fence dropping a grand on it (I says to me, it would be a grand worth dropping). Can you fellas with the AMT talk me in/out of it?

I agree totally with Vunz about the need for a full range rig. What makes the Pub so high-fidelity is the clarity and the focused nature of the sound due to the cab design and the smaller woofer. I think that is what reduces the feedback. Compare that to something like an AI cab where they "spread" the sound everywhere with the downfiring woofer.

As for the AMT, it's the only bass-specific mic I tried. All the others were mics mounted on a stand or between the bridge legs. You're paying for quality, ease of use, support and for something which is inherently usable. The best sounding mic is useless if you can't get enough sound because of feedback or bleed. Everything about the design of the AMT - the capsule, the isolation ring, the filters, is all about getting as much possible volume when using the mic, while still retaining accurate reproduction. I won't name any specific products but there's one bass mounted mic out there that costs a fraction of the AMT. Lots of people seem to buy it but lots of people also seem to end up selling it and hardly anybody seems to be able to rely on it solely or mostly to reproduce their sound. Which is something you can do with the AMT.

Funny thing...during one of my lo-o-o-ng phone chats with Marty Paglione, the guy behind the AMT mic, he seemed surprised that I (or anyone) was trying to go mic only. The implication seemed to be that it really wasn't the intended use of the AMT. It works very well in this application with proper high fidelity amplification, IMHO.

The way I do it, I just try to use as little enhancement as possible...beginning with the ideal sound of no amplification, then adding the AMT, and finally, the K&K pickup as needed.

That's funny because I had told him many times that I was using only the mic. On the point that it needs proper high fidelity amplification - I just got an e-mail from Adrian Juras this morning. He just received his AMT and said it's great but that teamed with his new Roland rig, the speaker moves way too much and there's too much sub frequencies coming through. I think when you're using any mic as the primary source of the sound (and not just to add some warmth to a harsh pickup), it definitely works best through a flat response, full range system. You also know that that you are getting natural (or close to) reproduction through the entire signal chain.

The Roland is just a temporary thing...I use it with my keyboard mostly. I am going to Toronto tomorrow morning to pickup an iAMP350 combo. It will be a considerable improvement over the Roland! I can cut the extreme lows with the parametric EQ, and it has a flat response. I fully intend to use the AMT on its own for the most part.